What's your favorite year?

[Clay Dreslough]

Is it more important to you that Baseball Mogul creates realistic results in the past? Or in the future?

[michaelg123789]

I'm going with future players on this one.

[SFSteveG]

I say fictional players because as far as i've seen except for the high health numbers on some guys which has already been noted because I tend to play well into the future.

[SkyDog]

I still prefer to play the only way the original was designed to play: start present-day, play on into the future. My favorite time is when the league is all fictional players. I'd prefer to be able to start in 2005 with the game generating a completely fictional universe.

[dawgfan]

I was a fan of BBM back in the old days - last version I had was BBM2000. Since then I've tried a couple of versions of OOTP and one of Puresim, but neither one has really grabbed me.

SkyDog's review on FOFC of the beta versions of BBM2006 have me interested again in Mogul. While I don't object to real players, my preference is to play in a fictional player universe. I'm not really interested in historical recreations personally, and I can give or take having real players at present (I'd just sim ahead to create a fictional universe if so).

[Buccaneer]

As a historical league simmer only, I care very little about current players/league or future fictional leagues. But I do realize that I am in the minority. Regarding this poll, here was what I posted at FOFC.

One historical era is not more important than another one. The poll should have been historical leagues vs current leagues vs fictional leagues. That's really the only breakdown.

I appreciate the work everyone has done on historical leagues, it's always been the poor stepchild of sports sims. A game should be able to model historical leagues as well as future leagues because both would show the ups and downs of franchises, stats and ratings. Having a league go to a "Ruthian Era" like the 1920s is no different than a surge in offense in the 2040s. Better hitters coming into the league - whether it's 1920 or 2040 - along with changes in stadiums and other factors should be the same algorithm. Why would anyone assume the baseball would (or should) be static over time?

[boomboom]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I was a fan of BBM back in the old days - last version I had was BBM2000. Since then I've tried a couple of versions of OOTP and one of Puresim, but neither one has really grabbed me.

SkyDog's review on FOFC of the beta versions of BBM2006 have me interested again in Mogul. While I don't object to real players, my preference is to play in a fictional player universe. I'm not really interested in historical recreations personally, and I can give or take having real players at present (I'd just sim ahead to create a fictional universe if so).

a fictional database usually comes with every version of the game...just select Custom database in 2k6..or universe.dat in 2k3,4 or 5.

IT should have it unless if you saved over the file...

[dawgfan]

a fictional database usually comes with every version of the game...just select Custom database in 2k6..or universe.dat in 2k3,4 or 5.

Cool. Although I still think I'd sim ahead about 20 years or so from present - I like having the real players finish out their careers and be added to the list of Hall of Famers so that I have a backdrop of familiar names and records there as standards against which to judge my future, fictional players.

[boomboom]

playing historical, I like playing the 1981-2000 databases...probably because i grew up during that time...

[Brent]

Historical by a landslide.

Mostly the 50's through 80's. After integration and before steriods.

[BubbaDrew]

I agree with Brent.

I am REALLY looking forward to the new way of historical play in 2006.

[Northern Brave]

like being able to start now and head forward to where the league is all fictional... like having the players now end up retiring etc because as I build the team I can judge according to the names I know the fictional ones as another means of assessing them.... it's great to go back though and play historical

[Xen_Antares]

I like starting off in 1986 and working my way forward, Im really looking forward to the new Mogul, adding historical rookies myself took too much time, but its what I really wanted and what made the game fun for me. After 2000 I dont care about fictional players.

[alvarez16]

current players, are the reason i play pretty much :D

[B. Gizzle]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I still prefer to play the only way the original was designed to play: start present-day, play on into the future. My favorite time is when the league is all fictional players. I'd prefer to be able to start in 2005 with the game generating a completely fictional universe. agreed, it's intersting to see how present day players project in terms of time. I remeber some versions in the past really loved Filpe Lopez, cause he kept on getting put into the hall of fame, but fun to see that :D

[mbishop]

My favorite part of this game is 20+ years into the future, so fictional players for me.

Matt

[alvarez16]

i dont really like fictional players

[SFSteveG]

I don't like starting with fictional players but i like integrating them into the game over time and then having all new players. As far as this goes it kinda killed starting any earlier than 2000 because of historical rookies but I do think it it a cool feature.

[boomboom]

you can always turn off historical rookies.

[SFSteveG]

Oh yeah. I don't do it that much anyway and i do remember seeing it and would have remembered when i got to the start up but thanks. It's just that it's grayed out when you start up a 2k5 game.

[alvarez16]

yeah i like intergtrating them into the game too

[BigRye]

I agree; I enjoy mixing current players with fictional ones as the years go on.

[alvarez16]

i also like the new all-time rookies

[BigBubba]

I like the realistic past because i dont know how you can do realistic future.

[nysteinbrenner]

Originally posted by BigBubba
I like the realistic past because i dont know how you can do realistic future.

Thank you!

[robinhoodnik]

I like them both equally. The future purely for the random unknown possibility of draft, development, and outcome. The past for the "what if?" factor, What if there was no war to interrupt Ted Williams' career? What if Pete Rose hadn't so damaged Ray Fosse in the all star game collision? Thurman Munson? Clemente? "Turkey" Mike Donlin held out for more money in the prime of a to that point, HOF career. When he came back his eyesight had been damaged by stage lighting on the vaudville circuit so badly that he could no longer hit, but "what if?"

[dolfanar]

I prefer historical play, starting with the Babe Ruth Era (1920+) but with a strong preferance for the post expansion era (1960+). But I also enjoy future play quite a bit.

Judging by the poll results thus far the only disposable period would be 1901-1920. Perhaps that period could be dropped and more focus put on making 1920+ more playable? Just a thought...

[Rand]

Current players are meaningless to me. I like playing historical seasons. That's actually why I first bought BBM, wanted to see how I would do with the Mets should-have-been dynasty of the '80s which Davey Johnson and Fred Wilpon mismanaged into garbage. I also like all fictional players, and would love the option of starting a game in, say, the year 2015 when all but the youngest current players are gone.

I'd even start a future league (Play By Email type) based on that scenario, so people are neither at an advantage or disadvantage based on their memory and knowledge of how well real players should do.

Caveat: Having historical players who don't perform at least within a plus or minus 10% range of their real careers is all but useless. I did a sim to see how Rickey Henderson would do in BBM 2006, and it was just plain sad. In reality, from 1980 through 1983 he stole 100+ bases three times out of four seasons, best was 130 and worst was 56. In BBM, no matter how the sliders were tuned, his best season was 56. So a guy who totaled 386 in four years of reality, totaled 190 in BBM.

I just don't see the point of having historical players who don't play even close to historical levels. We might as well use a custom database of renamed fictional players, or just rename them ourselves. The idea of playing history is to see how you would do with, or against, those same players playing in the same performance range. It's not to see what the simulation engine feels like doing with them.

Oh, and don't even let me get started on past history finances or free agency in 1920...

[Scorey1974]

playing historical, I like playing the 1981-2000 databases...probably because i grew up during that time...
Agreed Boomboom...I love starting out in the 80's and seeing all the players come up that I got to see play in real life. And I notice a few names I had completely forgotten about.

[robinhoodnik]

I have really tried to play the earlier years but it's just too frustrating to have the stats so goofy. I just can't overlook the high averages and pitching screwups since playing for awards is also part of the game. I get tired of the foolish ratings, and especially the financial model.

[dps]

Judging by the poll results thus far the only disposable period would be 1901-1920. Perhaps that period could be dropped and more focus put on making 1920+ more playable? Just a thought...

I have to disagree that 1901-1920 should be dropped. My preferred way to play is to start in the current year with current real players and then go forward, but when I play with historical players I want to start in 1901. Actually I'd like to have the option to play with 19th century players, though I wouldn't particularly want to go back before 1892.

[ScorpioPrimus]

For myself I am still in my first "dynasty" in BBM2006, having taken over the SF Giants in 1985, and taken them to 2039 so far. I have enjoyed being able to play with historical figures in the beginning, up through the years to a purely fictional league. Along the way, there have been interesting situations in which real-world superstars have turned into flops & retired after 4 or 5 seasons as bench players, while real-life minor leaguers have become Hall of Famers.

The one way I would improve the game would either be a sim engine that "adapted" over the years, so that game play reflected reality, and creating a successful team in 1915 is completely different than creating a winner in 1965 or 2005. Alternatively, it might be nice to have different sim engines reflecting different eras -- imagine trying to take today's Red Sox or Yankees to the World Series in a league geared to the deadball era, or the speed game of the early 80s?

[dps]

For myself I am still in my first "dynasty" in BBM2006, having taken over the SF Giants in 1985, and taken them to 2039 so far. I have enjoyed being able to play with historical figures in the beginning, up through the years to a purely fictional league. Along the way, there have been interesting situations in which real-world superstars have turned into flops & retired after 4 or 5 seasons as bench players, while real-life minor leaguers have become Hall of Famers.

The one way I would improve the game would either be a sim engine that "adapted" over the years, so that game play reflected reality, and creating a successful team in 1915 is completely different than creating a winner in 1965 or 2005. Alternatively, it might be nice to have different sim engines reflecting different eras -- imagine trying to take today's Red Sox or Yankees to the World Series in a league geared to the deadball era, or the speed game of the early 80s?

Yeah, that would be cool.

[rollsroyce11991]

I would have to say i perfer playing with current players over any others.

[BHyankees]

I prefer more concentration on the past. Most my sims start between 1985-2003. Re-writing history is my thing ... I did however start a present day Braves one the other day.

[BHyankees]

Sweet. From 2005. Who's the dick?

[Heinstein65]

Don't get upset. I just voted before I realized it was necro'd. Life goes on.

[Red Sox Fan 734]

Sweet. From 2005. Who's the dick?

Josh123123123. Who else?

[Josh123123123]

Josh123123123. Who else?

STOP ****ING SAYING ITS ME, I'm NOT DOING ANY ****!!!!!!!! :mad:

[Red Sox Fan 734]

Hackd

[Josh123123123]

Hackd

Get a life

[metsguy234]

Can we ban Josh already?

[Red Sox Fan 734]

Get a life

lololololololololololololololololololol

[Josh123123123]

lololololololololololololololololololol

:mad:

[oriole^]

I enjoy playing at just about all eras; my dynasty is set during the time when I was growing up, so, the early '80s.

One thing I don't see here as an option which I enjoy a great deal is playing the "what-ifs" of baseball: odd expansion teams, realignments, making teams stick around after they went belly-up or were moved in real life. I'd love to see options for more leagues, customizable playoffs, and so on.

[Rongar]

Bumped threads have their uses...take this particular one - I find it interesting, since I didn't join the forums until 2006, and would never know that the question had been raised, unless it was bumped.

Also consider the "lost wallet" debate in ejections...I had already contributed to the first go-round, but when it was bumped, recently, I found that I, myself, had a fresh take on the question.

Members come and go, over the years..." ...the BM newbies of today should have access to the golden threads of yesteryear..." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Josh123123123]

Bumped threads have their uses...take this particular one - I find it interesting, since I didn't join the forums until 2006, and would never know that the question had been raised, unless it was bumped.

Also consider the "lost wallet" debate in ejections...I had already contributed to the first go-round, but when it was bumped, recently, I found that I, myself, had a fresh take on the question.

Members come and go, over the years..." ...the BM newbies of today should have access to the golden threads of yesteryear..." (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

He's actually got a point.

[boomboom]

He's actually got a point.
No, bump threads do not have there uses. They are flat out annoying. Sure you can take a fresh look at them. But what bugs me is that a person is bumping threads because they vote in a poll but make no effort in a discussion. They are just being trolls. So if you are really interested in yesterday's discussions then look yourself.

[HoustonGM]

There are certain times where bumping a thread is acceptable. For example, filihok once bumped the thread about the Indian pitchers the Pirates signed to post a link to an article about their minor league debut. Adding to the discussion of a topic that has been posted before, but wouldn't really be suitable for a brand new thread, is an acceptable reason to bump an old post.

Voting on polls from 2005 en masse for no purpose is not an acceptable reason to bump old threads.

[Josh123123123]

No, bump threads do not have there uses. They are flat out annoying. Sure you can take a fresh look at them. But what bugs me is that a person is bumping threads because they vote in a poll but make no effort in a discussion. They are just being trolls. So if you are really interested in yesterday's discussions then look yourself.

I'm not the one who bumped this thread though, I havent been the one bumping.

[boomboom]

No, bump threads do not have there uses. They are flat out annoying. Sure you can take a fresh look at them. But what bugs me is that a person is bumping threads because they vote in a poll but make no effort in a discussion. They are just being trolls. So if you are really interested in yesterday's discussions then look yourself.


There are certain times where bumping a thread is acceptable. For example, filihok once bumped the thread about the Indian pitchers the Pirates signed to post a link to an article about their minor league debut. Adding to the discussion of a topic that has been posted before, but wouldn't really be suitable for a brand new thread, is an acceptable reason to bump an old post.

Voting on polls from 2005 en masse for no purpose is not an acceptable reason to bump old threads.

That was my point.

People who are bumping threads because they are voting in polls but are not adding to that thread is trolling. People who actually post something that involves that subject are adding to the subject. Which is ok.

[ewing6]

well tbh if we have posters like houston posting great rosters for the current year then the time frame during the 80's and 90's would matter more to me.

[Lex Logan]

That was my point.

People who are bumping threads because they are voting in polls but are not adding to that thread is trolling. People who actually post something that involves that subject are adding to the subject. Which is ok.

I never understood why some polls close after a given date, but now I see the point.

[GojiMet86]

I prefer playing in the early 1900s. That way, I have a long away a head of me to play. But I do it with fictional players, not historical players.